Post/Author/DateTime	Post
zzo38 05-19-07, 02:49 PM	Is it possible to destroy an artifact by doing like this: 1. Cast wish to gain a bag of holding. 2. Put the item into the bag of holding. 3. Cut the bag of holding with a dagger. Will this work? I know it cost a lot of XP (it is probably worth all that much XP). Am I allowed to do such things?
CantripN 05-19-07, 02:55 PM	That has nothing to do with Wish. Yes, you can do it that way, but it's a waste of Resources. You won't destroy the Artifact, however; All contents are lost forever, but not destroyed. You can destroy an Artifact with Wish by duplicating MDJ, though. Kinda risky...
Witch 05-19-07, 02:58 PM	You can destroy an Artifact with Wish by duplicating MDJ, though. Kinda risky... 1. MDJ can only destroy minor artifacts. 2. Wish cannot replicate MDJ.
gimby 05-19-07, 03:10 PM	1. MDJ can only destroy minor artifacts. That, alas, is a house rule: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm
Witch 05-19-07, 03:14 PM	That, alas, is a house rule: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm Hardly a house rule. Let me quote the SRD back at you. Major Artifacts Major artifacts are unique items—only one of each such item exists. These are the most potent of magic items, capable of altering the balance of a campaign. Unlike all other magic items, major artifacts are not easily destroyed. Each should have only a single, specific means of destruction. (my underlining) Mordenkainens Disjunction mentions artifacts as a generic term. Hence, specific rules for minor artifacts or major artifacts still apply. The specific rules for major artifacts state that a major artifact can only have a single specific mean of destruction. If Mordenkainen's Disjunction works on a major artifact, it is either: - not single (as there still is another option of destroying it) - not specific (as it copies the method for destroying other major artifacts). Hence, as MDJ cannot destroy major artifacts, the only artifacts it can destroy are minor artifacts, as I stated.
AtmaWeapon 05-19-07, 03:28 PM	Each should have only a single, specific means of destruction. My turn! "Should Have" does not equal "Does Have". Should implies a recommendation, while "Mage's" Disjunction is quite specific on the matter, including, but not limited to, percent chance of success and repercussions for doing so. It says "Artifacts" with no qualifier, which thus by default includes both major and minor artifacts. QED.
Witch 05-19-07, 03:34 PM	"should" is a design guideline, and is intended to qualify over all printed artifacts. If it wouldn't include printed artifacts, the line is there without any reason whatsoever.
AtmaWeapon 05-19-07, 03:42 PM	"should" is a design guideline, and is intended to qualify over all printed artifacts. If it wouldn't include printed artifacts, the line is there without any reason whatsoever. Design guideline or not, "Should" is not definitive. "Mage's" Disjunction also does not, persee, destroy the artifact. It only destroys the magic that infuses it, thus reducing it to a mundane, powerless item. So, both can technically still be true. A Deck of Many Things that is hit by a "Mage's" Disjunction doesn't go "poof", and it might still take a herculean task to physically destroy, but who cares? It doesn't do anything. And not doing anything is good enough to count as "destroyed" in my book. As a sidebar, I would hope no spellcaster would EVER be dumb enough to try kill an artifact with MDJ.
Nathreet 05-19-07, 03:53 PM	My turn! "Should Have" does not equal "Does Have". Should implies a recommendation, while "Mage's" Disjunction is quite specific on the matter, including, but not limited to, percent chance of success and repercussions for doing so. It says "Artifacts" with no qualifier, which thus by default includes both major and minor artifacts. QED. No. That's nonsense. I'm gonna go sunder a Saint's Mace (major artifact) with my longsword. After all, the sunder rules say I can sunder a weapon. They don't specify what kind. Let's see... it's a +5 weapon, not adamantine, so I should be able to look up the HP and hardness pretty easily.
CantripN 05-19-07, 03:56 PM	No. That's nonsense. Is it, now? MDJ is already such a stupidly broken spell that no one I know uses it. Why make the one arguably useful (though suicidal) thing it can do go to waste?
Nathreet 05-19-07, 04:01 PM	No, I meant the argument is just plain nonsense. In regard to your latest statement, see sig.
CantripN 05-19-07, 04:04 PM	No, I meant the argument is just plain nonsense. In regard to your latest statement, see sig. It's semantics. As to your other point - True.
AtmaWeapon 05-19-07, 04:15 PM	Nathreet: Are you going to provide any rules or justifactions for your statements, or just try to argue for argument's sake? Bear in mind that I never said you couldn't sunder it.
Nathreet 05-19-07, 04:49 PM	Nathreet: Are you going to provide any rules or justifactions for your statements, or just try to argue for argument's sake? Bear in mind that I never said you couldn't sunder it. Someone already gave the reason why you can't destroy greater artifacts with MDJ, nor sunder them for that matter. There is no reason to argue any further against every silly statement that someone makes about it. Try this one: Umbrellas stop rain. Monsoons bring a kind of rain. Therefore, umbrellas will work in a monsoon. This is common sense, and most people don't need a 10 step logical argument to know that it is false, to know that there are specific exceptions to rules. The proper response to anyone who disagrees without fairly strong reasoning (reasoning well beyond the 3 sentances given), would be some form of ridicule. But there aren't others who would greatly benefit from ridicule in this particular situation, and it does little for the erring person to rub it in.
CantripN 05-19-07, 04:55 PM	So I can use The Shadowstaff to hold apart the classic crushing walls trap? Cool.
AtmaWeapon 05-19-07, 05:22 PM	Try this one: Umbrellas stop rain. Monsoons bring a kind of rain. Therefore, umbrellas will work in a monsoon. This is common sense, and most people don't need a 10 step logical argument to know that it is false, to know that there are specific exceptions to rules. The proper response to anyone who disagrees without fairly strong reasoning (reasoning well beyond the 3 sentances given), would be some form of ridicule. But there aren't others who would greatly benefit from ridicule in this particular situation, and it does little for the erring person to rub it in. Now take your example, and make it more true to the situation. Put a paragraph in the user's manual that says "This product is 1% likely, per inch of user's height, that it will work in a monsoon". Now, it gets fuzzier. It might not work all the time, but at least it has a chance. I'd go into a page long rant about how D&D is a permissive ruleset, and how "1% chance per caster level to destroy artifacts" is in fact a far stronger statement then "each should have only 1 method of destruction", but I'd be wasting my time since your mind is already clearly made up.
cato 05-19-07, 06:58 PM	Artifacts cant be destroyed by mortal magic.. period.. Whole campaigns and official lvl 20 adventures are based on their destruction and their description does not read: Characters wake up, they cast mordenkainens disjunction a few times then play tic tac toe eat and sleep.. day 2 comes chars cast m. disjunction....
AtmaWeapon 05-19-07, 07:20 PM	Characters wake up, they cast mordenkainens disjunction a few times then play tic tac toe eat and sleep.. day 2 comes chars cast m. disjunction.... Ok, in fairness, "you have a 20-ish% chance at being successful, if you are you need to make a will save DC25 or lose all spellcasting *forever*, and there's a 95% chance you'll **** off someone, probably with quite a few levels above twenty, and the feat '[Epic] Kick your Ass', if not a diety'" is hardly "Waking up and casting Mordenkainen's Disjunction" I think the conversation goes more along the lines of: <Frodo> Well, we have to kill the One Ring... Just cast that one spell that kills the magic infusing it. <Gandalf> No way! I could lose my spellcasting forever! <Frodo> Come on just do it. <Gandalf> uh... say, I heard of this cool place called Mt. Doom!
cato 05-19-07, 07:52 PM	nah in case of the one ring it would be like: I could lose my spellcasting power forever.. and...? ah nothing, casting... And tbh major artifact descriptions usually state the ONLY ways to destroy them..
OneWinged4ngel 05-20-07, 04:20 AM	nah in case of the one ring it would be like: I could lose my spellcasting power forever.. and...? ah nothing, casting... Screw that, I'm not giving up my spellcasting to accomplish an otherwise easy task. They had giant eagles in Lord of the Rings, so... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xWBnzxZPGk ^---How Lord of the Rings should have ended.
cato 05-20-07, 05:02 AM	Nah tbh with an eagle sauron would see them much sooner or the nazgul would pawn them mid air with their flying thingies.. or they could summon those dread bird or whatever other magic power they possessed on them. The whole operation was based on stealth Ye, i wouldnt give up my spellcasting ability either, but I am not a hero in lord of the rings ^^ (that video is nice anyway :) Anyway to get back on the rules: When you have a phrase saying: Each should have only a single specific means of destruction determined ahead of time by you. And it lists examples like "crushed under the heel of a demigod" Its highly obvious it is not destroyed by a mere spell any character is likely to have anyway..
Witch 05-20-07, 05:21 AM	Ok, in fairness, "you have a 20-ish% chance at being successful, if you are you need to make a will save DC25 or lose all spellcasting *forever*, and there's a 95% chance you'll **** off someone, probably with quite a few levels above twenty, and the feat '[Epic] Kick your Ass', if not a diety'" is hardly "Waking up and casting Mordenkainen's Disjunction" I think the conversation goes more along the lines of: <Frodo> Well, we have to kill the One Ring... Just cast that one spell that kills the magic infusing it. <Gandalf> No way! I could lose my spellcasting forever! <Frodo> Come on just do it. <Gandalf> uh... say, I heard of this cool place called Mt. Doom! You have just the same chance of ******* someone off if you destroy the artifact any other way. And excuse me, but a 5% chance to lose all spellcasting can be worth it, especially if you have the UMD rogue do it.
runestar 05-20-07, 06:17 AM	Witch brings up a valid point - simply have the rogue UMD a scroll of MDJ. So you lose all your spellcasting prowess? Big deal when you never had any to begin with...:P Besides, not all artifacts are ground-shaking storehouses of power. Some are artifacts simply because they have a ton of backstory behind them, even though their stats suck. The one ring was simply a ring of invis, for example. Some of the artifacts in dragons of faerun are simply the equivalent of +4 weapons. It makes sense that destroying them should not be all that difficult compared to more powerful magic items, though it will certainly raise and draw a lot of ire.
Banatine 05-20-07, 07:05 AM	I would say that the one ring had significantly more power than just invisibillity. For a start it is an intelligent item, that can use suggestions on the people around it. It also had much more power in Sauron's hands than any other, since he made it. It probably granted him epic bonuses to strength and constitution, as well as AC.
katakraos 05-20-07, 07:25 AM	I think that if you use just a Wish or MDJ, the epic of the story and al the fun of the game will be ruined... But this is just my point of view...
Yusari 05-20-07, 08:27 AM	the thing about it is... even if you can't use MDJ to destroy a major artifact, why not simply use another spell to achieve it's destruction? And if another spell of a similar power level can acheive the destruction of the artifact, why wouldn't MDJ be able to do it (particularly given the penalties a user would endure). Returning to the original question of whether or not Wish can destroy a artifact... I would have to say that even if a wish can not destroy the magic item via the wish's own power, it can make destroying it much simpler. First, as the original poster suggested, a Wish could probably make it impossible to get to the artifact for pretty much everyone. Want to make something impossible to find? One option would be to call up a bag of holding and rupture it. Or call up a bag of holding and a portable hole, and place the bag (containing the artifact) inside the hole. Heck, I would say even more efficent then destroying the Bag of Holding would be to simply wish for a Bag of Devouring (although I suppose that does allow the possibility the item eds up on another plain instead of unfindable). But, even aside from these various options of how to make the artifact unfindable, a Wish could be used to much better effect in the destruction of an artifact. Most artifacts have a specific situational means of being destroyed (such as immersion into heironeous' fountain, or being crushed under the heel of a demigod, or whatever), which means one can easily wish for those circumstances to be fufilled. Need a demigod (or even a specific demigod) to step on it? Wish yourself to be standing near the demigod's foot as he takes a step. Need to find the Fountain of Heironeous and stick it inside? Wish to be there. One of the less used ability of Wish in pretty much every campagin I've played or watched, was the fact that a Wish spell can be used to lift any one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane to anywhere else... and nothing can stop it, because it can do so regardless of local conditions which might. So, you want to be at the bottom of the Infinite Staircase? Wish for it, and then cast your disintegration spell. Given the fact that fufilling the conditions of destroying an artifact is something that is only a Wish away to characters capable of casting said spell, although the use of that Wish may result in their death as well as the artifact's destruction, is it any less of an issue of a DM allows Mordenkainen's Disjunction to have a 20% chance of destroying the thing, and a chance of wiping out the spellcaster's ability to ever spellcast again if he succeeds, entirely apart from Angry And Very Powerful Big Creature showing up to have revenge on the PC? And if you worry about a rogue using a scroll of MDJ, there's multiple ways of dealing with that. Since the only person likely to have made a scroll of MDJ is one the PCs (unless the DM was silly enough to give them said scroll, in which case he shouldn't have any complaints about them using it to destroy said artifact), it would not be unreasonable to say that the magical backlash seeks out the person who made the scroll, instead of person who activated the scroll. After all, the person casting the scroll isn't actually doing anything but unleashing a stored matrix of energy from the item... given that this is a backlash against a spell destroying an integral part of reality, it would make sense (at least to me) that the backlash attacks the source of the spell energy that was used, even if that source wasn't the person who released the energy... but then, I've been burned by a DM in this manner before (not using MDJ on an artifact, but similar. My caster made a scroll of wish, which was stolen and used to steal a magic item from another mage. When said other mage performed a divination to figure out who cast the spell that stole said magic item, the divination pointed to me.)
zzo38 05-20-07, 10:54 AM	I think that if you use just a Wish or MDJ, the epic of the story and al the fun of the game will be ruined... But this is just my point of view... Well, usually, but sometimes you are just running out of time (maybe you just have to get rid of it instantly), or the dungeon master didn't intend it to get destroyed (or doesn't know how to destroy it), the means to destroy it are too dangerous, or something else. I have another question, I wonder if wish spell can be used to repair a broken bag of holding? (If so, maybe I should burn the broken pieces afterward, just to be safe)
Mirtek 05-20-07, 10:59 AM	ts highly obvious it is not destroyed by a mere spell any character is likely to have anyway.. It should not be destroyed by a mere 9th level spell, but according to the RAW it is.
cato 05-20-07, 12:46 PM	Nah when the raw says : An artifact should only have a single way of destruction to the DM, its not a mere guideline, should just goes to the fact that its giving you instructions. So no, according to the RAW it cant be destroyed by a spell, unless that is its single way of destroying it
CyberDrgn 05-20-07, 04:05 PM	Here's a simple way to deal with that: it says "An artifact should only have a single way of destruction", so just let the DM do whatever he wants with that, the rules of D&D are only a guideline to the DMs, they're not set in stone. He's the one who decide if he wants it destroyable or not; he can decide that MDJ doesn't exist in that plane, he can decide to reduce the odds or whatever. If you don't like what the DM does, get a new one. Showing rule books with a lawyer next to them is what munchkins do, not roleplayers.
cato 05-20-07, 04:24 PM	Here's a simple way to deal with that: it says "An artifact should only have a single way of destruction", so just let the DM do whatever he wants with that, the rules of D&D are only a guideline to the DMs, they're not set in stone. He's the one who decide if he wants it destroyable or not; he can decide that MDJ doesn't exist in that plane, he can decide to reduce the odds or whatever. If you don't like what the DM does, get a new one. Showing rule books with a lawyer next to them is what munchkins do, not roleplayers. I second that, I just dont think the decision of this thread is weather Mdj exists, merely if he wants the item destroyable or not, this rule is a guideline in the way all rules and spells are, and the DM can dismiss any of them if he feels its better for his game.
Yusari 05-20-07, 05:06 PM	Showing rule books with a lawyer next to them is what munchkins do, not roleplayers. Saying that showing rule books and following the rules is what munchkins do instead of roleplayers is at best a false stereotype, and at worst, downright crack-brained idiocy. The rules exist as a guideline for all players, and as has been stated many times before in more places than I can count: The DM is also a player. For a player to argue to his DM that a specific thing does not happen to be how rules of the game work has nothing to do with being a munchkin. It has to do with the fact that (in theory) every player goes into the game with an understanding of how the gameplay system works. Trying to keep such knowledge consistent between various game sessions is precisely why such a thing as a rulebook exists. For instance, if I am playing a wizard and I choose to cast a lightning bolt spell through some of my party members who are on a narrow walk way, and who I know can survive it, then I expect that lightning bolt to do what it usually does. Strike and keep on moving, affecting all the creatures who are charging at us down the walkway. If my DM then decides that lightning bolt spells exert a pressure that would force my allies off the side of the walkway, we have a problem. Why do we have a problem? Because according to the rules, a lightning bolt spell doesn't move people to the outer edge of it's area of effect (unless, of course, I am using the metamagic feat that makes it do so), and I cast the lightning bolt spell based on my understanding of the rules. In fact, I cast it precisely because it didn't risk death to any of my allies when I cast it... if I had known it risked their instantaneous deaths, I would have chosen another scenario. If the DM abruptly changes rules on me, or decides to use a variant rule where it does and never informed me he was going to use such a rule in the campign, or decides it does move them through simply not knowing the rule book well enough, then I am perfectly within my rights to hold up the rulebook to him and show him what it says, and say that the rules don't say it works like that. Rules-Lawyering does not automatically make a person a munchkin. I personally am a rules-lawyer... precisely because I have had DMs who were not able to maintain internal consistency throughout a campign. One paladin burnt down a village and sowed the ground with salt because we found an evil shrine underground nearby, and he saw human footprints near it. Deciding the townsfolk must be praying there, he put them all to the sword and torch without question, including the infants. The DM allowed him to remain a paladin. Another character in the same party was a Cleric of the same god as the paladin. After a series of brutal murders in another town that we as a party couldn't solve, the Cleric began performing a Spanish Inquisition style witch-hunt, to find the killer. The Cleric's alignment shifted, he was cursed by his god, and lost his clerical powers. Both paladin and cleric committed evil actions and felt absolutely no remorse for it. One kept his powers and the other didn't. And that's by no means the only instance I've run into where the rules weren't being followed in a game. It's not fun tiptoeing through the game wondering which rules from the book will be enforced when. For example: If you sit down at a board to play chess, checkers, or monopoly with other players, you expect them to follow the rules of the game. The Banker doesn't randomly get an additional $1000 starting money because he did the set up of the board. The person who's house you are playing at doesn't get to start the game of checkers with a kinged piece, and the other guy in chess doesn't get to start the game with two queens. Sorry if it seems like I'm ranting here, but my point is that the rules exist for a reason. Can they be changed or bent? Sure, just like you can play Monopoly with a $500 in the center of the board, or you can allow double or triple jumps in checkers, or disallow capturing en passant in chess. And if everyone agrees with the change, then that's all good and well. But if not, then some sort of compromise needs to be reached. A rules-lawyer does not necessarily do what he does because he is looking to be a munchkin and find all sorts of loopholes in the rules that allow him to do whatever he chooses. He may be doing it because he is simply uncomfortable not knowing what the rules of the game are. Just like you or I might be just a little bit uncomfortable if the police pull us over and we don't know what we're doing wrong (or worse yet, we're in a foreign country, where there are different laws). You may be in violation of the law without even knowing it... that doesn't make you a War Criminal who escaped the Nuremburg Trials. That's not to say that Rules-lawyers can't be munchkins. Far from it. A rules-lawyer tend to make a very good munchkin when they choose to be one, simply because they do have an very good understanding of what the rules are, where the rules can be bent, where they can be stretched, and where there exists gaps that they can walk through with impunity. However, this fact does not prevent them from being decent (and sometimes superior) role-players. Just as not knowing or understanding the rules doesn't necessarily mean you are not a decent role-player.
cato 05-20-07, 05:25 PM	Personally i have nothing against someone stating the rules to a DM, (but only as a reminder in case the DM forgot or misunderstood a rule), as long as he understand he is playing in the DM's world (even if it is FR or whatever) and the DM, has some power along with the extra work and responsibility of planning, balancing and running a campaign. So if the DM says something along the lines of: I know how lightning works in the books, but I rule that it pushes people back, but I realize you didn't know that so I give you an option to replay your last action. I think thats the proper cause of action for the DM.
navar100 05-20-07, 05:32 PM	Ok, in fairness, "you have a 20-ish% chance at being successful, if you are you need to make a will save DC25 or lose all spellcasting *forever*, and there's a 95% chance you'll **** off someone, probably with quite a few levels above twenty, and the feat '[Epic] Kick your Ass', if not a diety'" is hardly "Waking up and casting Mordenkainen's Disjunction" I think the conversation goes more along the lines of: <Frodo> Well, we have to kill the One Ring... Just cast that one spell that kills the magic infusing it. <Gandalf> No way! I could lose my spellcasting forever! <Frodo> Come on just do it. <Gandalf> uh... say, I heard of this cool place called Mt. Doom! <Frodo> Ok, can the Eagles fly us there?
CyberDrgn 05-20-07, 05:43 PM	Saying that showing rule books and following the rules is what munchkins do instead of roleplayers is at best a false stereotype, and at worst, downright crack-brained idiocy. Too bad I didn't say that. I said < to show the rule books "with a lawyer next to them" >, ie to try and force the hand of the DM. The rules exist as a guideline for all players, and as has been stated many times before in more places than I can count: The DM is also a player. For a player to argue to his DM that a specific thing does not happen to be how rules of the game work has nothing to do with being a munchkin. It has to do with the fact that (in theory) every player goes into the game with an understanding of how the gameplay system works. Trying to keep such knowledge consistent between various game sessions is precisely why such a thing as a rulebook exists. Here's a quote from the DMG: "...it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will ALWAYS recognize that you have the ULTIMATE authority over the game mechanisms, even supersiding something in a rulebook." For instance, if I am playing a wizard and I choose to cast a lightning bolt spell through some of my party members who are on a narrow walk way, and who I know can survive it, then I expect that lightning bolt to do what it usually does. Strike and keep on moving, affecting all the creatures who are charging at us down the walkway. If my DM then decides that lightning bolt spells exert a pressure that would force my allies off the side of the walkway, we have a problem. Why do we have a problem? Because according to the rules, a lightning bolt spell doesn't move people to the outer edge of it's area of effect (unless, of course, I am using the metamagic feat that makes it do so), and I cast the lightning bolt spell based on my understanding of the rules. In fact, I cast it precisely because it didn't risk death to any of my allies when I cast it... if I had known it risked their instantaneous deaths, I would have chosen another scenario. If the DM abruptly changes rules on me, or decides to use a variant rule where it does and never informed me he was going to use such a rule in the campign, or decides it does move them through simply not knowing the rule book well enough, then I am perfectly within my rights to hold up the rulebook to him and show him what it says, and say that the rules don't say it works like that. That's the key term, abruptly. If he says it beforehand, he can decide that a lightning bolt does as much pressure as he wants, or that a fireball is blue and sings the "Macarena" as it flies toward its target, the player does not have any morale or real authority over that. Rules-Lawyering does not automatically make a person a munchkin. I personally am a rules-lawyer... precisely because I have had DMs who were not able to maintain internal consistency throughout a campign. One paladin burnt down a village and sowed the ground with salt because we found an evil shrine underground nearby, and he saw human footprints near it. Deciding the townsfolk must be praying there, he put them all to the sword and torch without question, including the infants. The DM allowed him to remain a paladin. Another character in the same party was a Cleric of the same god as the paladin. After a series of brutal murders in another town that we as a party couldn't solve, the Cleric began performing a Spanish Inquisition style witch-hunt, to find the killer. The Cleric's alignment shifted, he was cursed by his god, and lost his clerical powers. Both paladin and cleric committed evil actions and felt absolutely no remorse for it. One kept his powers and the other didn't. And that's by no means the only instance I've run into where the rules weren't being followed in a game. It's not fun tiptoeing through the game wondering which rules from the book will be enforced when. Now that has nothing to do with rules, this is about consistency; asking why such a thing is different than another is by no mean rule-lawyering, but a simple question. If he can't answer and/or won't, nothing prevents you from gettig a more competent DM. For example: If you sit down at a board to play chess, checkers, or monopoly with other players, you expect them to follow the rules of the game. The Banker doesn't randomly get an additional $1000 starting money because he did the set up of the board. The person who's house you are playing at doesn't get to start the game of checkers with a kinged piece, and the other guy in chess doesn't get to start the game with two queens. That's clear use of logic dishonesty; D&D isn't a game which can be compared to chess or monopoly. Even so, there exists many variants to chess and monopoly, all of which are played by many consentant people. This argument is worth a big 0. Let's compare the same situation to let's say a Real-Time strategy game. In missions, computers pretty much always start with more ressources than you; to overcome these obstacle and claim victory is proof of a good player. Even RTS can't be truly compared to D&D though, because D&D is a dynamic game system, it changes, it evolves, it gets tweaked all the time. Sorry if it seems like I'm ranting here, but my point is that the rules exist for a reason. Can they be changed or bent? Sure, just like you can play Monopoly with a $500 in the center of the board, or you can allow double or triple jumps in checkers, or disallow capturing en passant in chess. And if everyone agrees with the change, then that's all good and well. But if not, then some sort of compromise needs to be reached. I'd like to point out a very simple thing: Dungeon Master's GUIDE. It's not Dungeon Master Rules or Laws or Constitution, it's a guide; the DM is god, if you don't like a world's god, move somewhere else. If he wants to keep DMing with you, he'll compromise, if not go away, no one is forced to play a game. If you want to go by a set or rule absolutely, make your own game. A rules-lawyer does not necessarily do what he does because he is looking to be a munchkin and find all sorts of loopholes in the rules that allow him to do whatever he chooses. He may be doing it because he is simply uncomfortable not knowing what the rules of the game are. Just like you or I might be just a little bit uncomfortable if the police pull us over and we don't know what we're doing wrong (or worse yet, we're in a foreign country, where there are different laws). You may be in violation of the law without even knowing it... that doesn't make you a War Criminal who escaped the Nuremburg Trials. But it does make you a criminal. If you're unconfortable with with the rules, ask them from the DM. If the DM likes to change rules midgame, it's his right, he can make the world evolve as he pleases, if you don't like it go learn knitting or something. That's not to say that Rules-lawyers can't be munchkins. Far from it. A rules-lawyer tend to make a very good munchkin when they choose to be one, simply because they do have an very good understanding of what the rules are, where the rules can be bent, where they can be stretched, and where there exists gaps that they can walk through with impunity. However, this fact does not prevent them from being decent (and sometimes superior) role-players. Just as not knowing or understanding the rules doesn't necessarily mean you are not a decent role-player. A DM can do anything h wants. Asking why such or such things works in a way that is different from your understanding is, from what I've seen, the best way to deal with unlogical DMs. In the end though, it's always up to you to decide to stay or not. As Largo once said in the Megatokyo comic "Your game, your rules. But it doesn't mean I have to play."
Mirtek 05-20-07, 05:54 PM	this rule is a guideline in the way all rules and spells are, Of course, in your game you can also make fireballs do 2d4 points of force damage instead of 10d6 fire damage. But these boards are about RAW and not about ones house rules, otherwise the boards would be unnecessary, because everyone would always be right, as no one can be wrong in his own game. By the RAW as it is, a MDJ will destroy an artifact. That's IMO a terrible design flaw and I would not allow it in my game and I would be more than happy to see it removed from the RAW as well, but as it currently is, the RAW allows it.
CyberDrgn 05-20-07, 06:35 PM	Well mirtek, I was just saying that arguing so much about RAW on ambiguous text doesn't lead anywhere if the authors of the book themselves left inconsistencies in the books. Oh, and your sig reminded me of a funny charter I read once, of a student newspaper. I'd just like to point out that the student union are providing the funds for that newspaper. 1. The student union shall thereof be known as "The enemy"; 2. We do not acknowledge the existence of "The enemy"; ... (some I forgot) 9. blah blah 11. We do not acknowledge the existence of the number "10".
Muktar 05-20-07, 06:44 PM	Actually, according to RAW, it could destroy it. Could being the operative term here. What does this mean everyone? Yes, it is up to the DM to decide whether it actually does or not.
cato 05-20-07, 10:16 PM	Actually, according to RAW, it could destroy it. Could being the operative term here. What does this mean everyone? Yes, it is up to the DM to decide whether it actually does or not. According to the RAW it could only destroy it if it was the sole means of destroying it only. I can destroy it as much as a 5 lvl fireball can..
Izzak 05-20-07, 11:19 PM	The artifact is an artifact for a reason, nothing by mortal means has the power to destroy these( I mean the major and uber special ones.). I mean artifacts are only vunerable to what ever they say they are, or so i guess. or have the cleric's god do you a gigantic favor,
Deep Blue 9000 05-21-07, 01:41 AM	Mage’s Disjunction All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher. You also have a 1% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined. Even artifacts are subject to disjunction, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. Additionally, if an artifact is destroyed, you must make a DC 25 Will save or permanently lose all spellcasting abilities. (These abilities cannot be recovered by mortal magic, not even miracle or wish.) Note: Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device. You may not want MDJ to be able to destroy artifacts. It may seem overpowered. It may trivialize famous adventures. You may never allow it in your games. It may be a terrible idea. None of that affects RAW. MDJ specifically mentions the spell's ability to destroy artifacts. Not just minor artifacts. And if the rules for Sundering said "Even artifacts are subject to Sundering, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items", then yes, you could sunder the one ring too! But it doesn't. That's what makes MDJ uniquely able to destroy major artifacts.
cato 05-21-07, 01:47 AM	Srd: "An artifact should only have a single way of destruction" This is what it says on greater artifacts, so I am afraid unless MDJ is that way of destruction, then its a no go.
CyberDrgn 05-21-07, 03:47 PM	Srd: "An artifact should only have a single way of destruction" This is what it says on greater artifacts, so I am afraid unless MDJ is that way of destruction, then its a no go. Here is a simple way to see this. D&D isn't written by lawyers and always congruent. Both seem to be true, so whichever you want to override the other (the SRD and ther MDJ description) can do until there's an oficial statement by wotc which wil probably never come.
Kursk 05-21-07, 04:09 PM	It should not be destroyed by a mere 9th level spell, but according to the RAW it is. According to "RAW" major artifacts are destroyed by what the DM says can destroy them. This is obviously a nod to the "One Ring".
Deep Blue 9000 05-21-07, 05:08 PM	That's not how RAW works. Specific rules trump general rules. So the rule of what can destroy artifacts is trumped when a single spell says it can destroy artifacts.
Kursk 05-21-07, 05:16 PM	That's not how RAW works. Sure it is. IF you read the section on Major artifacts it's clear that it is general info only and the DM can change however they want. This of course includes how they are (or aren't) destroyed.
cato 05-22-07, 01:13 AM	So in case of a vagueness in SRD RAW balance and interpretation you assume the most logical solution and try to understand what wizards meant or where it was going with this. Its pretty obvious they didnt mean for a greater artifact to be destroyed by a spell.
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-22-07, 12:07 PM	Its pretty obvious they didnt mean for a greater artifact to be destroyed by a spell. Actually MDJ comes from 1st edition. In 1st edition, there were no such thing as minor or major artifacts. There were magic items, which included the deck of many things, sphere of annihilation and other stuff we consider to be minor artifacts now. 1st and 2nd edition Artifacts were what we now consider major artifacts. And MDJ back in that edition could destroy artifacts. So actually, the original intent of the spell was to destroy greater artifacts.
Muktar 05-22-07, 12:26 PM	Irrelevant, because this is 3rd edition. Whether you can say it was intent on a previous edition or not does not support your position.
CantripN 05-22-07, 12:31 PM	Irrelevant, because this is 3rd edition. Whether you can say it was intent on a previous edition or not does not support your position. Seeing as the spell itself is a Copy-Paste job, with no regard to rules and balance of the new edition, it actually makes perfect sense. The intent of the spell is irrelevant, however. We only care what the rules say about it, which is NOT clear, since we are at a disagreement. Personally, I think it should work, but I simply ban the spell in my games as do most my friends, so nevermind...
Sleepwalker13666 05-22-07, 12:33 PM	So I can use The Shadowstaff to hold apart the classic crushing walls trap? Cool. Well it might hold for a while, but eventually the rock is going to give, and the staff would be forced out diagonally and the walls would continue to move in.
Elana 05-22-07, 12:45 PM	Actually, if we go by PHB only then it can do it. But the chances are slim. If your 20th level spell caster tries the spell, there is an 80 % chance that nothing will happen.. A 1% chance that the item actually gets destroyed. And a 19% chance that he is permanantly killed. (20% success chance but then a 95% chance that the specific deity intervenes, uses a wish to make the recent action undone, and then kills that puny mortal who dared to try his hands on such a task) And honestly if someone is stupid enough to cast the spell under those circumstances, he deserves the 1 in 100 chance to actually succeed.
Witch 05-22-07, 12:47 PM	(20% success chance but then a 95% chance that the specific deity intervenes, uses a wish to make the recent action undone, and then kills that puny mortal who dared to try his hands on such a task) There is no reference to deities in MDJ. It only specifies "powerful entity", which could just as well be a Pit Fiend.
Elana 05-22-07, 12:53 PM	Sure, if the DM is feeling nice :P But I dare say, when you destroy the Mace of Cuthbert it is more likely that a certain deity gets ****** instead of a pit fiend. (Why is that crappy thing a major artifact anyway)
lukelightning 05-22-07, 01:34 PM	Sure, why not? The wish itself doesn't destroy the item, it just alters reality so that the conditions needed to destroy it occur. Wizard: "I'm sick of this evil Jockstrap of Jubilex. It's the lamest artifact ever. I cast wish and wish it destroyed." DM: "Well, it turns out the only way to destroy it is for it to be eaten by the Tarrasque. So the Tarrasque suddenly appears and swallows you."
cato 05-22-07, 01:42 PM	The intent of spells is ****ed up in 3.5 majorly in any case, so we should separate it from the intent of 1st I mean haste gives you conditional speed, disintegrate gives conditional disintegration and so on. Maybe the intent of the spell was to destroy any artifact but if that is the case we have conflicting intent between the DMG and the handbook. There is also the SRD statement that talks about which book takes precedent in each situation: When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. this is a direct quote from the basic errata texts According to the above and as far as items (in this case artifacts are concerned) the dmg should take precedence (- then again one might say that MDJ is a class feature and its description should take precedence) I personally think that according to the Errata quote I gave above, that Artifacts have only one way of destruction I personally like MDJ... We consider it imba but we still use it like we used all the imba spells in 1st 2nd and 3rd edition, like i used imprisonment before that and haste in 2nd edition and many other "imba spells" I was always under the notion that mages are supreme people in a Dnd world (at least they always were) and all the most powerful figures in campaigns like FR are always assosiated with high lvl magic (Arcane or divine) or otherwise social/leadership skills. This is not an MMO that is based on balance but much more a game based on RP, i dont think there should be balance in a game like this, like there is not Balance (at least not in combat) in the real world.
Fortebraccio 05-22-07, 04:24 PM	There is no reference to deities in MDJ. It only specifies "powerful entity", which could just as well be a Pit Fiend. It is entirely up to your DM...and if he is not pleased with the destruction of the artifact via MDJ, said "powerful entity" will vaporize your wizard no matter what.
Witch 05-22-07, 04:29 PM	It is entirely up to your DM...and if he is not pleased with the destruction of the artifact via MDJ, said "powerful entity" will vaporize your wizard no matter what. It always stupifies me how people believe that these powerful entities won't be mad about the artifact's destruction when it's done in any other way. They don't care how you destroyed said artifact. They care about the fact that it's destroyed.
Fortebraccio 05-22-07, 07:00 PM	Well, according to the MDJ entry, they happen to care HOW you destroyed it. Maybe the idea that their precious trinket was disposed of like a lowly Ring of Protection +1 makes them ESPECIALLY mad, so much that they decide to take care of the matter personally and immediately. Or maybe their artifact insurance policy doesn't cover MDJ, since otherwise the premium would be insanely high... who knows. :)
forsaken1111 05-22-07, 11:54 PM	Sorry to off-topic, but a rogue with high UMD and a scroll of teleport without error would destroy the One Ring in about 12 seconds. 6 seconds to activate the scroll... 6 seconds to toss the ring in. Then obviously the eagles would take him back to safety.
ArcTan 05-23-07, 01:09 AM	That's not how RAW works. Specific rules trump general rules. So the rule of what can destroy artifacts is trumped when a single spell says it can destroy artifacts. ...And along the same lines, when a single spell says it can destroy artifacts in general, but a particular kind of artifact (major artifacts) says it can only be destroyed by a single method, the latter trumps the former. Just like if I made a kind of Undead that said in its monster desc that it couldn't be turned, that would trump the description of Turn Undead in the Cleric class desc.
ArcTan 05-23-07, 01:10 AM	Sorry to off-topic, but a rogue with high UMD and a scroll of teleport without error would destroy the One Ring in about 12 seconds. 6 seconds to activate the scroll... 6 seconds to toss the ring in. Then obviously the eagles would take him back to safety. Which is why Lord of the Rings' dramatic continuity was vastly improved by the fact that, basically, there weren't any casters capable of casting spells higher than 4th level in it. DMs have often also found this to be true of the plots of their campaigns.
ArcTan 05-23-07, 01:21 AM	Actually MDJ comes from 1st edition. In 1st edition, there were no such thing as minor or major artifacts. There were magic items, which included the deck of many things, sphere of annihilation and other stuff we consider to be minor artifacts now. 1st and 2nd edition Artifacts were what we now consider major artifacts. And MDJ back in that edition could destroy artifacts. So actually, the original intent of the spell was to destroy greater artifacts. The original intent of D&D was that Dwarves couldn't be Wizards, that simulacrum could only make a copy of yourself, that Psionics be something where you gain powers randomly with no pretense at game balance, that Paladins be by far the most powerful melee warriors in the game, and that everyone who reaches level 10 gets a castle. A lot of things have been changed since their origins in D&D, often for the better. It seems pretty obvious that intentionally telling DMs that they should maintain complete control over how major artifacts can be destroyed is such a change.
ArcTan 05-23-07, 01:22 AM	Seeing as the spell itself is a Copy-Paste job, with no regard to rules and balance of the new edition, it actually makes perfect sense. The intent of the spell is irrelevant, however. We only care what the rules say about it, which is NOT clear, since we are at a disagreement. Personally, I think it should work, but I simply ban the spell in my games as do most my friends, so nevermind... As people have said, even by this argument, the DMG trumps the PHB when it comes to magic items.
ArcTan 05-23-07, 01:26 AM	It always stupifies me how people believe that these powerful entities won't be mad about the artifact's destruction when it's done in any other way. They don't care how you destroyed said artifact. They care about the fact that it's destroyed. I always interpreted this line in MDJ as meaning that the flare of magic given off by an MDJ destroying a (minor) artifact is something that an Outsider had a % chance to automatically sense from his home plane. Clearly it's not a % chance to care about the artifact being destroyed -- St. Cuthbert will get mad if you destroy his mace no matter what -- but it's a % chance for him to *automatically become immediately aware of it* and start looking for you right away, as opposed to finding out about it years later when he comes by to check. This is why, as I interpret it, it's always safer to find a non-MDJ way of destroying an artifact if you have to destroy one, because usually I would say that the non-MDJ method is quieter, and doesn't dump artifact-death-throe-signals all over the Astral Plane. (For a highly dramatic event like destroying the One Ring, there'd probably be death throes no matter what -- but highly dramatic destructions of highly major artifacts like the One Ring should be impossible with MDJ anyway.)
Deep Blue 9000 05-23-07, 01:53 AM	...And along the same lines, when a single spell says it can destroy artifacts in general, but a particular kind of artifact (major artifacts) says it can only be destroyed by a single method, the latter trumps the former. Just like if I made a kind of Undead that said in its monster desc that it couldn't be turned, that would trump the description of Turn Undead in the Cleric class desc. You're misunderstanding. MDJ is specific, Artifact is general. Why? Because the specific rule mentions the general one but not vice versa. Taking your undead example, that undead is specific because it mentions the rules for turning. Consider, however, if the rules for turning mentioned that turning affects that particular undead. And the undead's abilities mention a complete invulnerability to all divine energy but do not specify turning. In this situation, turn would be able to affect the hypothetical undead. Now, you could make an argument that MDJ only implies the invulnerability rules for greater artifacts instead of directly mentioning them and that is not enough. However, I would respond that the implication is necessary: if artifacts had no special invulnerabilities, MDJ would not need to even mention that they are destroyed by this spell. There is also the SRD statement that talks about which book takes precedent in each situation: this is a direct quote from the basic errata texts According to the above and as far as items (in this case artifacts are concerned) the dmg should take precedence (- then again one might say that MDJ is a class feature and its description should take precedence) I personally think that according to the Errata quote I gave above, that Artifacts have only one way of destruction This only applies when two rulesare contradictory. However, MDJ is merely making an exception to the DMG rule. This is no more disagreement between the sources than Improved Grab (MM) altering the rules for making Grapples (PHB).
ArcTan 05-23-07, 01:58 AM	You're misunderstanding. MDJ is specific, Artifact is general. Why? Because the specific rule mentions the general one but not vice versa. Taking your undead example, that undead is specific because it mentions the rules for turning. If however, the rules for turning mentioned that turning affects that specific undead and the undead's abilities mention a complete invulnerability to all divine energy then turning trumps the undead. Nothing about MDJ says anything about major artifacts, just like nothing in the Turn Undead ability desc says anything about (let's make up a name) Doom Revenants. If I say Doom Revenants cannot be turned by any means, then that means Turn Undead doesn't work on them. The fact that Doom Revenants are Undead and Turn Undead says it works on Undead becomes irrelevant. MDJ says it works on *artifacts*, not major artifacts. Major artifacts are a special kind of artifact, just like Doom Revenants are a special kind of Undead. This only applies when two rulesare contradictory. However, MDJ is merely making an exception to the DMG rule. This is no more disagreement between the sources than Improved Grab (MM) altering the rules for making Grapples (PHB). No. Major artifacts are an exception to the rule about artifacts. Ordinary (minor) artifacts, which make up the vast majority of all artifacts that exist, can indeed be destroyed by MDJ. Major artifacts are a special kind of artifact that cannot. Just like ordinary Undead, of which Doom Revenants only make up a small portion, can be turned by Turn Undead, but Doom Revenants can't. Or, to drop this fake example and use a real one, the spell disable construct says it works on all Constructs. Golems, however, are immune to all spells, including disable construct. Golems are therefore a specific exception to the disable construct spell, even though disable construct fails to mention Golems specifically. The fact that a lot of people think of Golems as the iconic Constructs has nothing to do with this, because Golems are in fact just one particular kind of Construct. Just because people automatically think "major artifact" when they think "artifact", because major artifacts are the coolest artifacts (much as Golems and their Epic big brothers, Colossi, are probably the coolest or at least most powerful Constructs), doesn't mean they define all artifacts. Indeed, the very fact that they're "major", the best of the best, means they don't. FWIW, there aren't that many major artifacts. The Mace of St. Cuthbert, Moaning Diamond, Orb of Dragonkind, etc. are all major, but Spheres of Annihilation, the Deck of Many Things, the Talismans of Pure Good and Ultimate Evil, the Staff of the Magi -- these are all ordinary or "minor" artifacts. This is by far the simplest, least contradictory way to read the rule. Saying that major artifacts can only be destroyed one way and then saying MDJ can destroy them is clearly not an exception, it's a contradiction -- especially when there's no contradiction involved in simply saying that MDJ can destroy minor but not major artifacts, just as disable construct obviously simply doesn't work on Golems but does work on other Constructs.
Deep Blue 9000 05-23-07, 02:39 AM	First of all, Specific and General rules are not some sort of absolute thing. Rule X mentioning rule Y is what makes X specific and Y general. If two rules which do not mention each other say different things, it is a contradiction. If two rules say different things but one mentions the other, there is no contradiction. Now, you are correct that MDJ does not explicitly mention Major Artifacts in particular. Only artifacts in general. But there are only two kinds of artifacts: minor and major. If MDJ meant to only affect one type, it would be trivially easy to say "minor artifacts" in the description. Similarly, if MDJ was meant to affect both types of artifacts, it could have said "major and minor artifacts." However, I am inclined to believe they felt this was needlessly legalistic. The set of artifacts is the exact same as the set of both minor and major artifacts, so why not just use the one word? Switching Gears, let's use your golem example. I agree disable construct does not affect golems. However, consider this. What if there were only two types of constructs in the game: Iron Golems and Homunculi and there can never be a third type of construct. And pretend the line that said whether or not Disable Construct allowed spell resistance as omitted as if in a printer's error. In this situation, I would have to interpret Disable Construct completely differently: I would let it affect both types of constructs despite it being a spell. It is simply too suspicious that Disable Construct says "construct" instead of "Homunculus".
ArcTan 05-23-07, 02:50 AM	First of all, Specific and General rules are not some sort of absolute thing. Rule X mentioning rule Y is what makes X specific and Y general. If two rules which do not mention each other say different things, it is a contradiction. If two rules say different things but one mentions the other, there is no contradiction. Now, you are correct that MDJ does not explicitly mention Major Artifacts in particular. Only artifacts in general. But there are only two kinds of artifacts: minor and major. If MDJ meant to only affect one type, it would be trivially easy to say "minor artifacts" in the description. Similarly, if MDJ was meant to affect both types of artifacts, it could have said "major and minor artifacts." However, I am inclined to believe they felt this was needlessly legalistic. The set of artifacts is the exact same as the set of both minor and major artifacts, so why not just use the one word? Switching Gears, let's use your golem example. I agree disable construct does not affect golems. However, consider this. What if there were only two types of constructs in the game: Iron Golems and Homunculi and there can never be a third type of construct. And pretend the line that said whether or not Disable Construct allowed spell resistance as omitted as if in a printer's error. In this situation, I would have to interpret Disable Construct completely differently: I would let it affect both types of constructs despite it being a spell. It is simply too suspicious that Disable Construct says "construct" instead of "Homunculus". ...And I wouldn't, because it would be right there, in black and white on the Golem monster desc, that they're immune to spells. I see the major/minor artifact thing differently from you. Major artifacts are not one of the two big types of artifacts. Major artifacts mean the very best of the best of artifacts, while minor artifacts are just ordinary artifacts. This is, in fact, what the DMG says -- it says that minor artifacts are the artifacts you're most likely to find and that the vast majority of all artifacts that exist are minor artifacts, and major artifacts are specifically artifacts designed to be the focus of a whole campaign and are specifically defined as unique and impossible to destroy except by one specific method. It's not like the difference between Elves and Grey Elves, it's like the difference between Elves and Paragon Elves. It's like how charm person specifically says it works on all Humanoids, and does not add that it specifically does not work on Humanoids who have ascended to godhood. You're meant to be able to figure that out yourself based on the fact that deities become immune to mind-affecting effects, and that they're friggin' *deities*. If you want to rule differently, rule differently, but I think the situation is a lot more like the *actual* situation with disable construct and Golems than like your hypothetical situation. The point of major artifacts is that they're exceptions to the normal rules about artifacts -- the *point* of major artifacts, as described in the DMG, is that they're exceptions to the normal rules about everything.
cato 05-23-07, 05:24 AM	First of all, Specific and General rules are not some sort of absolute thing. Rule X mentioning rule Y is what makes X specific and Y general. If two rules which do not mention each other say different things, it is a contradiction. If two rules say different things but one mentions the other, there is no contradiction. Now, you are correct that MDJ does not explicitly mention Major Artifacts in particular. Only artifacts in general. But there are only two kinds of artifacts: minor and major. If MDJ meant to only affect one type, it would be trivially easy to say "minor artifacts" in the description. Similarly, if MDJ was meant to affect both types of artifacts, it could have said "major and minor artifacts." However, I am inclined to believe they felt this was needlessly legalistic. The set of artifacts is the exact same as the set of both minor and major artifacts, so why not just use the one word? Switching Gears, let's use your golem example. I agree disable construct does not affect golems. However, consider this. What if there were only two types of constructs in the game: Iron Golems and Homunculi and there can never be a third type of construct. And pretend the line that said whether or not Disable Construct allowed spell resistance as omitted as if in a printer's error. In this situation, I would have to interpret Disable Construct completely differently: I would let it affect both types of constructs despite it being a spell. It is simply too suspicious that Disable Construct says "construct" instead of "Homunculus". All this is lawyering its pretty clear the DMGs rules on artifacts supersede rules about artifacts on the PHB according to wizard, and this supercedes the general vs specific argument too..
forsaken1111 05-23-07, 08:36 AM	All this is lawyering its pretty clear the DMGs rules on artifacts supersede rules about artifacts on the PHB according to wizard, and this supercedes the general vs specific argument too.. If it was really that clear, do you think they'd be arguing? Seriously, if you're going to contribute don't come on and say "Well I don't know why you'd argue about something so obvious." At least post something helpful.
cato 05-23-07, 08:53 AM	If it was really that clear, do you think they'd be arguing? Seriously, if you're going to contribute don't come on and say "Well I don't know why you'd argue about something so obvious." At least post something helpful. Tbh I think these now are arguments for arguments sake: I saw no debunk of my previous post on Dmg taking precedence over Phb when items are concerned, just some twirling around the specific rule pole. 1) Its obviously stupid for a spell to destroy an artifact whole campaigns are written around, since any rogue bard could stock up on scrolls and spam them. 2) The DMG according to the SRD supersedes the rules of the PHB when items are concerned - and it states a greater artifact should only have a single way of destruction. 3) The specific rule is about a spell, it supersedes a general rule about spells, but the rule about artifacts is an item rule and it supersedes any general and specific rules when they pertain to items. Is that clear enough?
forsaken1111 05-23-07, 08:58 AM	Tbh I think these now are arguments for arguments sake: I saw no debunk of my previous post on Dmg taking precedence over Phb when items are concerned, just some twirling around the specific rule pole. 1) Its obviously stupid for a spell to destroy an artifact whole campaigns are written around, since any rogue bard could stock up on scrolls and spam them. 2) The DMG according to the SRD supersedes the rules of the PHB when items are concerned - and it states a greater artifact should only have a single way of destruction. 3) The specific rule is about a spell, it supersedes a general rule about spells, but the rule about artifacts is an item rule and it supersedes any general and specific rules when they pertain to items. Is that clear enough? Yes, at least its constructive. To be honest, I agree with you but have no way to prove it to them and stop the argument, so I'm just watching and commenting. That said, at this point I'd just leave it up to the DM.
Millennium 05-23-07, 09:06 AM	Whether or not you can use MDJ to destroy a major artifact, you can't use wish to duplicate MDJ, so that point is moot. However, while wish can't directly destroy an artifact (unless, of course, it can), it is still highly useful in the destruction of artifacts. If nothing else, you could use it to learn how to destroy a specific artifact. Depending on what circumstances are necessary for the artifact to be destroyed, wish can also be very useful in setting up those circumstances.
AtmaWeapon 05-23-07, 09:43 PM	1) Its obviously stupid for a spell to destroy an artifact whole campaigns are written around, since any rogue bard could stock up on scrolls and spam them. You're welcome to your opinion that it's "stupid", but just because you think it's stupid doesn't mean it doesn't work. 2) The DMG according to the SRD supersedes the rules of the PHB when items are concerned - and it states a greater artifact should only have a single way of destruction. The precedence of books only applies, ONLY, when the two sources are contradictory. They are not. "This spell has a 1% chance to destroy artifacts" is definite. It is absolute, and it is firm. "Each artifact should only have one means of destruction" is flimsy, and is a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule. If the authors wanted to stop MDJ from killing major artifacts, all they would have to have done is, instead of merely offering a suggestion, say "each artifact has only one method of destruction". Now all ambiguity is gone, and those claiming MDJ doesn't kill artifacts would have a leg to stand on. Too bad it doesn't. 3) The specific rule is about a spell, it supersedes a general rule about spells, but the rule about artifacts is an item rule and it supersedes any general and specific rules when they pertain to items. Uh no. By that logic, everyone takes an attack of opportunity for starting a grapple, because the rules for combat are about combat, while the rules for Improved Grapple are rules for a feat, and thus the rules for combat supercede the rules for improved grapple. Which is just plain rediculous.
cato 05-24-07, 01:53 AM	You're welcome to your opinion that it's "stupid", but just because you think it's stupid doesn't mean it doesn't work. The precedence of books only applies, ONLY, when the two sources are contradictory. They are not. "This spell has a 1% chance to destroy artifacts" is definite. It is absolute, and it is firm. "Each artifact should only have one means of destruction" is flimsy, and is a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule. If the authors wanted to stop MDJ from killing major artifacts, all they would have to have done is, instead of merely offering a suggestion, say "each artifact has only one method of destruction". Now all ambiguity is gone, and those claiming MDJ doesn't kill artifacts would have a leg to stand on. Too bad it doesn't. Like you said earlier its your opinion, imo its clear that its a rule , the word should is merely a way to speak to someone like: While building this tent the poles A should be fitted into the slot number A, you CAN fit it into B but then you will have a ****ed up tent. Uh no. By that logic, everyone takes an attack of opportunity for starting a grapple, because the rules for combat are about combat, while the rules for Improved Grapple are rules for a feat, and thus the rules for combat supercede the rules for improved grapple. Which is just plain rediculous. Both those rules are in the PHB, the rule I stated only contradicts 2 different game sources on different types of arguments.
Muktar 05-24-07, 02:24 AM	Because the DMG specifically states that there should only be one method of destroying an artifact but none of the artifacts have any specifics. The answer is simple. The DM has full control of what happens. There is nothing in MDJ that would contradict that. Specific beats general. Just because there is only 2 to choose from, doesn't mean there is no choice. To say that the meaning of generality vs specificity is lost because there is only 2 choice is false. You are trying to add a worth judgment to something that it doesn't apply. In short, just because the choice is only 2, doesn't mean there is a loss of generality vs specificity ruling. Therefore, DMG trumps PHB. They left in open in case if they made other kinds of artifacts. That is not new.
Deep Blue 9000 05-24-07, 04:46 AM	Tbh I think these now are arguments for arguments sake: I saw no debunk of my previous post on Dmg taking precedence over Phb when items are concerned, just some twirling around the specific rule pole. I cannot debunk this claim because it is true. The DMG is the primary source when it comes to items. My argument was designed to negate your by attacking the idea that there is a contradiction between the PHB and DMG. If there is no contradiction, then primacy doesn't matter. If you feel that some part of it is too pedantic or semantic, please say where the problem is.
cato 05-24-07, 05:26 AM	I cannot debunk this claim because it is true. The DMG is the primary source when it comes to items. My argument was designed to negate your by attacking the idea that there is a contradiction between the PHB and DMG. If there is no contradiction, then primacy doesn't matter. If you feel that some part of it is too pedantic or semantic, please say where the problem is. Dunno if u read my latest post, but I dont argue against the rule of specific over general. I am just stating that you have to examine it in its own source pull. If you assume that DMG is the Core source pull, and the mother of all item rules, as PHB is for characters, then the specific over general rule should apply to each book, but Not cross source borders. Thinking of it any other way would create a huge mess, and examples as ones stated above by another poster. Family guy quote: Its shallow, shallow and pedantic. :)
ArcTan 05-24-07, 05:35 AM	They are not. "This spell has a 1% chance to destroy artifacts" is definite. It is absolute, and it is firm. "Each artifact should only have one means of destruction" is flimsy, and is a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule. If the authors wanted to stop MDJ from killing major artifacts, all they would have to have done is, instead of merely offering a suggestion, say "each artifact has only one method of destruction". Now all ambiguity is gone, and those claiming MDJ doesn't kill artifacts would have a leg to stand on. Too bad it doesn't. This argument is already pretty stupid, but I'll point out that suggesting you do something that's impossible by the rules is still a contradiction, and that when the books suggest that you *houserule* they usually make it clear that they're doing so. Note that none of the major artifacts described come with a means of destroying them, so "should have only one means of destroying" refers to the DM making up a means of destroying them and having full control whether one exists. This *could* include casting MDJ on the major artifact, or it could not. This is something that's being explicitly put within the DM's power. Of course, it was already within the DM's power anyway thanks to Rule Zero, but I tend to take the books seriously when they mention something that should be defined by the DM instead of clearly set out by the rules.
ArcTan 05-24-07, 05:36 AM	I cannot debunk this claim because it is true. The DMG is the primary source when it comes to items. My argument was designed to negate your by attacking the idea that there is a contradiction between the PHB and DMG. If there is no contradiction, then primacy doesn't matter. If you feel that some part of it is too pedantic or semantic, please say where the problem is. It already got way too pedantic when you started saying that whole big chunks of text in the DMG mean nothing because they're only "suggestions", and actually claiming there's a *meaningful* difference between things that are "only suggestions" and things that are "absolute solid rules". Whenever a discussion reaches the point of saying "Well, this is the RAW!" and making a big deal solely about what is RAW and what isn't RAW -- as opposed to what the rules *should* be and what makes the game better -- then the discussion has become way too pedantic. I'm not really all that interested in arguing about whether major artifacts being immune to MDJ is RAW (though I think it's pretty clear that it is). Do you actually think it's RAI, though? Or that it's *good for the game*? Is it *ever* good to have a one-size-fits-all artifact-killing spell that bypasses that one plot-critical means of destroying an artifact the DMG, correctly, says makes major artifacts interesting in the first place?
forsaken1111 05-24-07, 11:04 AM	So we've answered the thread right? The answer was no, even IF MDJ could destroy an artifact, wish cannot mimic MDJ right?
cato 05-24-07, 12:36 PM	So we've answered the thread right? The answer was no, even IF MDJ could destroy an artifact, wish cannot mimic MDJ right? Lol, I forgot the argument of the thread was even that :p, we sorta high jacked the thread but, still the info here could benefit the guy who asked about wish in any case:p
zzo38 05-24-07, 02:33 PM	So we've answered the thread right? The answer was no, even IF MDJ could destroy an artifact, wish cannot mimic MDJ right? That was not the original purpose of the thread. Read the first message over again. It says with wish spell you could lose an artifact forever by creating a bag of holding, put item in bag, cut bag with dagger and the artifact is lost forever. That should be good enough. Now is the next question: Is there some way to get back an artifact that is lost forever in a broken bag of holding? Can anybody do it? Will anybody do it?
ArcTan 05-24-07, 04:10 PM	That was not the original purpose of the thread. Read the first message over again. It says with wish spell you could lose an artifact forever by creating a bag of holding, put item in bag, cut bag with dagger and the artifact is lost forever. That should be good enough. Well, you don't even need wish to do that. Bags of holding aren't that expensive. Now is the next question: Is there some way to get back an artifact that is lost forever in a broken bag of holding? Can anybody do it? Will anybody do it? This is why I was never totally satisfied with the "lost forever" ruling on bags of holding, and want something more specific (like, say, the contents are shunted to a random place thousands of miles away on the Astral Plane that they have very little chance of finding their way back from). I would say this should work for minor artifacts, but the point of major artifacts is that there's no way to permanently get rid of them except a DM-defined one. If you try to "lose" it by shunting it to the Astral Plane or hurling it into the sea or burying it deep beneath the ground or whatever, events will conspire to somehow get it back on your doorstep again, possibly through the intervention of a god or other major entity with an interest in the artifact. (I don't see this as a contradiction in the rules -- the artifact is, indeed, "lost forever" as in *you* can never find it again. But just because I've lost something doesn't mean it's gone, or it'll never come back on its own.)
ArcTan 05-24-07, 04:28 PM	First, as the original poster suggested, a Wish could probably make it impossible to get to the artifact for pretty much everyone. Want to make something impossible to find? One option would be to call up a bag of holding and rupture it. Or call up a bag of holding and a portable hole, and place the bag (containing the artifact) inside the hole. Heck, I would say even more efficent then destroying the Bag of Holding would be to simply wish for a Bag of Devouring (although I suppose that does allow the possibility the item eds up on another plain instead of unfindable). Nothing about the "nonspace" in which the bag of devouring "spits out" indigestible food says that things there are unfindable. You can probably find it floating around somewhere in the Astral or something with plane-hopping magic if you're powerful enough. Even the "unfindable" stuff from a bag of holding explosion probably is findable if you comb the Astral long enough, since that's where the flavor says things go ("lost forever" because a "rift to the Astral Plane" was opened). Then there's the sphere of annihilation, which I'd say major artifacts simply pass through harmlessly (just like you can't use them to kill gods). But, even aside from these various options of how to make the artifact unfindable, a Wish could be used to much better effect in the destruction of an artifact. Most artifacts have a specific situational means of being destroyed (such as immersion into heironeous' fountain, or being crushed under the heel of a demigod, or whatever), which means one can easily wish for those circumstances to be fufilled. Need a demigod (or even a specific demigod) to step on it? Wish yourself to be standing near the demigod's foot as he takes a step. Need to find the Fountain of Heironeous and stick it inside? Wish to be there. Agreed. One of the less used ability of Wish in pretty much every campagin I've played or watched, was the fact that a Wish spell can be used to lift any one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane to anywhere else... and nothing can stop it, because it can do so regardless of local conditions which might. So, you want to be at the bottom of the Infinite Staircase? Wish for it, and then cast your disintegration spell. Although this only works if the bottom of the Infinite Staircase is a real place that exists, which it may not be. (If it's an artifact-destroying condition, though, it has to be.) Given the fact that fufilling the conditions of destroying an artifact is something that is only a Wish away to characters capable of casting said spell, although the use of that Wish may result in their death as well as the artifact's destruction, is it any less of an issue of a DM allows Mordenkainen's Disjunction to have a 20% chance of destroying the thing, and a chance of wiping out the spellcaster's ability to ever spellcast again if he succeeds, entirely apart from Angry And Very Powerful Big Creature showing up to have revenge on the PC? Well, yes. Because using MDJ to do something exactly as written in the book is inherently uninteresting. At least using a wish to set up the conditions of destroying the artifact forces the players to go interesting places and see interesting things. And it's not like wish has *unlimited* power to fulfill the conditions of an artifact being destroyed. It can take you from one place to another -- it can't give you access to any object or creature or set of conditions in the multiverse. Not to mention wish costs XP and MDJ doesn't. MDJ is an obvious and simple tool that requires no thought, even if it requires risk. Figuring out the specific mechanism of destroying a plot artifact and then carrying out those conditions is at least interesting and moves an adventure along. And if you worry about a rogue using a scroll of MDJ, there's multiple ways of dealing with that. Since the only person likely to have made a scroll of MDJ is one the PCs (unless the DM was silly enough to give them said scroll, in which case he shouldn't have any complaints about them using it to destroy said artifact), it would not be unreasonable to say that the magical backlash seeks out the person who made the scroll, instead of person who activated the scroll. After all, the person casting the scroll isn't actually doing anything but unleashing a stored matrix of energy from the item... given that this is a backlash against a spell destroying an integral part of reality, it would make sense (at least to me) that the backlash attacks the source of the spell energy that was used, even if that source wasn't the person who released the energy... but then, I've been burned by a DM in this manner before (not using MDJ on an artifact, but similar. My caster made a scroll of wish, which was stolen and used to steal a magic item from another mage. When said other mage performed a divination to figure out who cast the spell that stole said magic item, the divination pointed to me.) I wouldn't rule this way. It has too many ways to come back and bite you, if the "caster" is always considered the person who made the scroll. (For one thing, it's *not* certain that the only place you can get the scroll is by the party caster scribing it, and if they know that's how this works, they're likely to find some way to try to go around it.) I would simply say that MDJ used by a UMD-using character has a chance of taking away their ability to use UMD ever. And not allow MDJ to work on things I don't want it to work on.
cato 05-24-07, 06:11 PM	as for the last post, you could buy scrolls from a dead spellcaster or simply have him die cast the spell then ressurect him, or many similar things. As for taking away UMD.. if ur willing to adapt to something like that.. u might as well play it as it was intended and only use one means of destruction for artifacts.. unless that was mdj then it doesnt work.. As for bags of holding there is a faq 3.5 on that : Can a Mordenkainen’s disjunction destroy magic items stored in a bag of holding? What happens to the items within if it destroys the bag of holding? It’s not entirely clear where items stored within a bag of holding (or similar storage item) actually “are” (whether stored inside a bigger-than-it-looks container or actually floating in some extraplanar void). The bag’s entry (Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 248) simply describes it as opening “into a nondimensional space” with an “inside larger than its outside.” The Sage’s suspicion is that most DMs consider items within a bag of holding to be “not there”—that is, the items aren’t actually bouncing around on the owner’s hip but are instead suspended in an extradimensional/extraplanar “somewhere else.” The Sage further suspects that this determination is a combination of a) ease of game play and b) a leftover legacy of previous editions of the game. The simplest solution, then, is to say the items in a bag of holding aren’t actually present to be affected by Mordenkainen’s disjunction (or any other effect that might otherwise damage items stored in a bag or pack). That doesn’t, however, render such items perfectly safe. The rules don’t state this clearly, but the entry for the bag of holding strongly suggests that if it is destroyed by any means, the contents are “lost forever.” Thus, a Mordenkainen’s disjunction spell that successfully turns a bag of holding into a normal bag also “destroys” anything held within the bag. (A dispel magic or similar effect that simply suppressed the bag’s magic would strand the items temporarily, but they’d be reachable again as soon as the magic returned.)
Deep Blue 9000 05-27-07, 03:05 AM	It already got way too pedantic when you started saying that whole big chunks of text in the DMG mean nothing because they're only "suggestions", and actually claiming there's a *meaningful* difference between things that are "only suggestions" and things that are "absolute solid rules". Whenever a discussion reaches the point of saying "Well, this is the RAW!" and making a big deal solely about what is RAW and what isn't RAW -- as opposed to what the rules *should* be and what makes the game better -- then the discussion has become way too pedantic. I'm not really all that interested in arguing about whether major artifacts being immune to MDJ is RAW (though I think it's pretty clear that it is). Do you actually think it's RAI, though? Or that it's *good for the game*? Is it *ever* good to have a one-size-fits-all artifact-killing spell that bypasses that one plot-critical means of destroying an artifact the DMG, correctly, says makes major artifacts interesting in the first place? Aww, I wanted to argue some more. :weep: However, as to your second point: the custom here on the boards is that we are only talking about RAW unless we explicitly preface a statement saying that its RAI or what we think the rules should be. I believe its a good policy. I think awareness of what is and isn't a houserule is important for the community to have so that everyone is aware of the bad spots in RAW. I am of the belief that this awareness contributes to WoTC errata of the offending rule. And I think we can all agree that the RAW being the best rules is optimal. And it prevents confusion. Saying "Fighters are melee class" when you think that by RAW, they are not, is a recipe for misunderstanding. To answer your question, I happen to agree with you. A single spell eliminating a potential adventure is unfun. I happen to ban MDJ in my campaign but even if I didn't, I would not let it destroy a plot artifact.
cato 05-27-07, 08:26 AM	Indeed, its good to take the opposite side of the argument just for the sake of investigating things thoroughly
ArcTan 05-27-07, 04:42 PM	Aww, I wanted to argue some more. :weep: However, as to your second point: the custom here on the boards is that we are only talking about RAW unless we explicitly preface a statement saying that its RAI or what we think the rules should be. I believe its a good policy. I think awareness of what is and isn't a houserule is important for the community to have so that everyone is aware of the bad spots in RAW. I am of the belief that this awareness contributes to WoTC errata of the offending rule. And I think we can all agree that the RAW being the best rules is optimal. And it prevents confusion. Saying "Fighters are melee class" when you think that by RAW, they are not, is a recipe for misunderstanding. To answer your question, I happen to agree with you. A single spell eliminating a potential adventure is unfun. I happen to ban MDJ in my campaign but even if I didn't, I would not let it destroy a plot artifact. Up to a certain point it's stupid, though. The rules are written in ordinary language, not some kind of perfect computer code. They will *always* be open to misinterpretations and problems. That's the way language works. Actually, I think what's been bad for the game has been writing the rules in overprecise jargon-laden language, which both intimidates newbies *and* encourages certain kinds of veterans to use ridiculous loopholes that defy common sense, because the fact that the rules are written in an overprecise jargon-laden language implies that they're supposed to be perfect and foolproof without recourse to common sense. Which *no* rules can *ever* be, no matter how much jargon you use. Trying to make a rule "bulletproof" just makes it longer and longer and harder and harder to read. Look, it's one thing to say that "I think it's a common houserule to reduce the price on this item, but by RAW it's quite high" and another to say that "I think it's a common houserule to say that dead characters can no longer take actions, but by RAW they can". Claiming the RAW has to specify what "dead" means because otherwise we wouldn't know that being dead means you're dead and can't fight anymore is where the argument has gone too far. It seems obvious to me that the whole point of saying major artifacts should have only one means of destruction is to protect them from MDJ and similar effects (like *also* not being able to destroy them by flinging them into acid, since by RAW nothing says that artifacts are immune to acid damage). If it's not obvious to you, then fine, we disagree.
cato 05-27-07, 05:35 PM	Arctan i think you made your point before this, as for the argument, both sides have presented their argument and I think the thread shows a clear picture of what the RAW says, its just a point of choice for people to decide what to do from this point on. As for rules, even if many people do not use some raw abuses themselves, it still can be fun for a lot of people to play with logic and the rules, and I think that, in a way, it can be part of the game too.